DEA is investigating two pharmacies in Colorado. It doesn’t want those pharmacies to know it is investigating them. But it needs information relating to these pharmacies and the prescriptions they are dispensing to assist with its investigation. So DEA is doing what it does on a regular basis in many states. It is issuing subpoenas for the Colorado Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (“PDMP”) data relevant to these registrants. And Colorado is objecting.
Continue Reading The Curious Case of Colorado: DEA Sues the BOP
Judge Dissolves ISO Against West Virginia Pharmacy: Suspicion Of Diversion Not Enough to Support Suspension
In a decision issued on October 30, Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia dissolved an Order of Immediate Suspension of Registration (“ISO”) issued by DEA against Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy, a West Virginia pharmacy. Without getting too far into the factual weeds of this case, I do think there are two or three critical takeaways related to both the adjudication of this matter and to DEA’s view of Subutex vs. Suboxone.
Continue Reading Judge Dissolves ISO Against West Virginia Pharmacy: Suspicion Of Diversion Not Enough to Support Suspension
Key Takeaways from the Rochester Drug Co-Op Deferred Prosecution Agreement
As you undoubtedly should know by now, on April 22, 2019, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the Rochester Drug Co-operative, Inc. (“RDC”).
Specifically, the government announced that
“RDC agreed to accept responsibility for its conduct by making admissions and stipulating to the accuracy of an extensive Statement of Facts, pay a $20 million penalty, reform and enhance its Controlled Substances Act compliance program, and submit to supervision by an independent monitor.”
Continue Reading Key Takeaways from the Rochester Drug Co-Op Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Federal Judge Overturns DEA’s Immediate Suspension Order…for now.
A United States District Court Judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from enforcing the Immediate Suspension Order issued against Morris & Dickson.
Acknowledging, that the entire administrative record was not before the court, Judge Foote nonetheless held that “Plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial likelihood that it will be able
Alleged Failure to Report Suspicious Orders Leads to Suspension
On May 2, 2018, the DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (the “Order”) against Morris & Dickson Co., LLC (“M&D”), a drug distributor based in Louisiana with pharmacy customers in 7 states. The DEA has two main allegations against M&D:
- M&D failed to maintain effective controls against division of controlled substances into other than legitimate channels, in violation of 21 USC 823(b)(1) and 21 CFR 1301.71.
- M&D failed to identify and report suspicious orders to DEA, in violation of 21 CFR 1301.74(b).
Continue Reading Alleged Failure to Report Suspicious Orders Leads to Suspension
Are DEA Administrative Hearings Fundamentally Unfair to Registrants?
While a great deal of attention is given to DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Mulrooney’s (“CALJ Mulrooney’s”) opinion regarding the impact of the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act on DEA enforcement efforts, very little attention has been afforded a shocking and unprecedented attack by a sitting DEA Administrative Law Judge on DEA’s formal administrative hearing process found within the same article.
Hidden in plain sight at the end of CALJ Mulrooney’s and Ms. Katherine Legel’s soon-to-be-published law review article is a thirty page attack on the procedures that govern DEA administrative hearings, substantive decisions in final agency decisions, and the individuals assigned to draft final agency decisions on behalf of the agency.
Continue Reading Are DEA Administrative Hearings Fundamentally Unfair to Registrants?
The Other Side of the Story: DEA Enforcement in the Opioid Crisis
Nobody would argue with the fact that there is an opioid crisis in our country – it is a demonstrable fact. However, there has recently been a significant focus on whether drug wholesalers and their business partners including lobbyists have caused people to die from overdoses, including a recent segment by 60 Minutes. While the segment sought to educate viewers on the causes of prescription drug abuse and the alleged slowdown in enforcement efforts by the government, it is of course journalism and takes a strong position against drug companies. Aided by reporters from the Washington Post and former employees from the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the 60 Minutes segment, while dramatic in its presentation, only told the facts relevant to the position it was taking – which is what makes good headlines.
Continue Reading The Other Side of the Story: DEA Enforcement in the Opioid Crisis
DEA Prevails Over Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.
On June 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order in Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (No. 15-1335). In sum, the Court denied Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s (“Masters”) Petition for Review seeking to overturn the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (“DEA”) revocation of Masters’ DEA registration. This decision has wide-ranging implications for DEA-registered wholesalers, who are required to detect and report suspicious orders of controlled substances.
Continue Reading DEA Prevails Over Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.
The Continued Evolution of DEA’s Due Diligence Requirements
On May 11, 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration filed its brief in Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (Docket No: 15-1335), in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The vast majority of the Government’s brief addresses whether “substantial evidence” (the applicable standard of review) supports Acting Administrator Rosenberg’s decision to revoke Masters’ DEA registration. Curiously, the Government does not dedicate much effort to one of the seminal issues in the case: whether DEA imposed new obligations on registrants in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Rather than attempt to defend the indefensible, the Government invoked a creative reading of the Masters Final Order that is starkly at odds with Administrator Rosenberg’s decision. In its brief, DEA states that Administrator Rosenberg’s decision “did not impose any new duties on distributors.” In defending this position, the Government’s brief goes on to say the following:
Most of the “new duties” that Masters and amici cite in their briefs were obligations that Masters had voluntarily imposed on itself through its own compliance program. [citation omitted] The Administrator cited Masters’ failure to perform many of these duties – such as obtaining utilization reports or asking customers for explanations of unusually large orders – because Masters sought to rely on its compliance program to justify its reporting failures. However, in highlighting Masters’ disregard for its own program’s requirements, the Administrator did not impose those same requirements on all registered distributors.
Continue Reading The Continued Evolution of DEA’s Due Diligence Requirements
DEA Decisions: Clarifying a Respondent’s Right to the Presentation of Remedial Evidence and Discovery
On February 18, 2015, the DEA issued its final decision and order in the case against prescriber Hatem M. Ataya (“Ataya”). The Administrator ordered Ataya’s registration to be revoked and his pending applications for additional registrations to be denied on the grounds that Ataya has, since the proceedings began, lost the authority to dispense controlled substances under state law. Still, the Administrator’s decision also details the bases on which he agreed with the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) findings that Ataya issued controlled substance prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose (in violation of 21 CFR § 1306.04(a)) and violated federal and state law when he authorized more than five refills of schedule IV controlled substances, failed to include patients’ addresses on numerous prescriptions, and post-dated a prescription.
Continue Reading DEA Decisions: Clarifying a Respondent’s Right to the Presentation of Remedial Evidence and Discovery